In my last essay, I concluded that Christians should not watch The Chosen since it breaks the Second Commandment. The Word of God gives all of the information needed concerning the Son of God and no human-produced creation can add to or take away from that information in the New Testament. For some reason, though, as humans, we always want more than what we are given. This is very likely one of the reasons for the Second Commandment. We are to be content with that which is given by God. We are likewise to be content with that which God has allowed and that which God has forbidden.
Humans are visual creatures and the desire for something more will always be, at least partially, fulfilled by visual arts. However, when depicting a member of the Trinity through visual arts, the medium has gone too far and, as Postman argues, “we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.”1Postman, 3. Further still, this does not take into account the significant liberties taken with the text of Scripture, both subtracting from and adding to, within the dialogue of The Chosen nor does it take into account the non-Christian influence. I will cover those two remaining issues next.
Having surveyed, albeit briefly, various scholars concerning the biblical text in Exodus 20:4–6 and finding the series to be biblically lacking, we turn now to a theological critique of The Chosen. First, a discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture as God’s revelation and the relationship of sufficiency to The Chosen, will be helpful. Second, a discussion concerning the addition of words not attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and/or words deleted from the mouth of Jesus as found in the New Testament will be instructive.
First, how does the sufficiency of Scripture relate to The Chosen“? The sufficiency of Scripture, as historically understood in Evangelical Protestantism, means the Bible is sufficient for all areas of Christian faith and practice. John Frame defines the sufficiency of Scripture by writing, “Scripture contains all the divine words needed for any aspect of human life.”2John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2010), 220 Wayne Grudem’s definition is similar. He notes, “[T]he sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.”3Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 152.
Indeed, all matters pertaining to salvation and Christian obedience are either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the inerrant and infallible Word of our sovereign God. One of the running motifs in Scripture is that God supplies the necessary resources for that which He commands. The Lord commanded the ancient Israelites to follow Him through the desert and, in Exodus 15 and 16, He supplied water and food to the Israelites in the wilderness. The Lord commanded David to defend God’s honor against pagans and, in 1 Samuel 17, He supplied the power for David to slay Goliath. God commanded Daniel to be stalwart in his beliefs, and in Daniel 6 when thrown into a den of hungry lions, He supplied protection for Daniel in the midst of lions. The Lord commanded Elijah to preach His message regardless of the opposition, and in 1 Kings 18, He supplied fire for Elijah to prove God is real and living as opposed to the false, dead idols. God demanded a perfect, permanent sacrifice to atone for human sin, and in John 1, He supplied Christ as that propitiation. God demands that we listen to Him alone, and in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, He supplied His perfect word to us. If, as 2 Timothy 3:16–17 instructs, God’s Word indeed supplies all that is needed for every good work, then nothing more, in whatever form that may come, is needed. The Old and New Testaments are all we need and serve as the foundation for everything pertaining to Christian faith and practice.
Unfortunately, our current media and visual centric culture demands more than words on a page. We no longer seem to have a sense of contentment based purely on the written word. As Postman writes, we require amusement. When this amusement comes alongside, takes the place of, or supersedes Scripture, we have removed the Bible as the sufficient guide for the Christian life and replaced it with something else. True faith is found in and centered on Scripture and nothing else. Romans 10:17 reads, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” It is through the fully sufficient Word of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit, in which faith is found and by which faith is produced. Likewise, teaching about Christianity and the Christian life must be centered on and grounded in Scripture and Scripture alone. Again, if 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is true, the Christian must rely on Scripture alone because it alone is sufficient for all areas of faith and practice. Resorting to modern artistic creations to give us a better visualization of who Christ is, a more complete understanding of the humanity of Christ, or a greater sense of connection to Christ denigrates Scripture from its rightful place as the all-sufficient guide for the Christian. The Christian is to visualize Christ from and through Scripture. The Christian understands all he needs to know of the humanity and deity of Christ from and through Scripture. The Christian connects fully to Christ through Scripture. The Bible is the sufficient guide. We see Christ in the read and preached Word. No “books for the laity” are needed.
Second, the Bible is the complete Word of God, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. Nothing more, nothing less. All of Scripture is equally important. Leviticus is no less or more important than Romans; Numbers no less or more than John; Proverbs no less or more than Revelation. Every word of Scripture is, as 2 Timothy 3:16 instructs, the very breath of God. Because every word found in Scripture is the breath of God, every word is important.
The Bible is filled with passages warning against the addition or removal of text. The most immediate that comes to mind is Revelation 22:18–19: “I bear witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” To be fair with this specific text, most commentators argue it only applies to the Book of Revelation itself. Interestingly, however, Beale points out the warning in Revelation 22 directly parallels the warning in Deuteronomy 4:1–2, 12:32, and 29:19–20, suggesting the Revelation passage could hold greater implication and application than only to the book itself.4G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1150. Beale writes, “Though vv 18–19 could be viewed generally as an exhortation, they are better seen as a warning. They summarize the Apocalypse, viewing it as a new law code for a new Israel, modeled on the old law code directed to the nation of Israel.”5Ibid. He continues,
What does it mean to “add to” or “take away from” the revelatory words? The answer must be sought in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 4:1–2 and 12:32 the same sort of language serves as a warning against deceptive teaching that idolatry was not inconsistent with faith in the God of Israel. . . . Those who deceive in this way are false prophets. . . . Therefore, “adding and taking away” are not general disobedience to the divine word, but adherence to false teaching about the inscripturated word. Belief in the abiding truth of God’s word is the presupposition for positive obedience to it.”6Ibid., 1151.
He continues, “Those who do not heed the warnings profess to be Christian, but their allegiance to other gods betrays their confession. As a result, the inheritance they lay claim to by their apparent testimony will be withheld because they deny by their actions the faith they profess.”7Ibid., 1152. MacArthur agrees. He writes,
[John’s] solemn warning against tampering with Scripture applies first of all to the prophecy of the book of Revelation (cf. 1:3). Its stern rebukes of Jezebel and her followers (2:20–23), those who had embraced the “deep things of Satan” (2:24), and those of the “synagogue of Satan” (3:9) would have prompted them to assault it. Down through the centuries there have been others who have both attacked Revelation and seriously misinterpreted it. But in light of the repeated warnings against altering God’s Word, Christ’s warning must be broadened to include all of Scripture. In Deuteronomy 4:2 Moses cautioned, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” In Deuteronomy 12:32 he added, “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” Proverbs 30:5–6 warns, “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar,” Thus, the prohibition against altering the Apocalypse by implication extends to all of Scripture.8John MacArthur, Revelation 12–22 (Chicago: Moody, 2000), 309–310.
MacArthur concludes,
No true believer would ever deliberately tamper with Scripture. Those who know and love God will treat His Word with the utmost respect. . . . The Lord’s warning here is addressed to those who engage in deliberate falsification or misinterpretation of Scripture, those whom Paul denounces as peddlers of the Word of God (2 Cor. 2:17).”9Ibid., 310.
How, then, does this apply to The Chosen? In 2021, Dallas Jenkins released a video on YouTube in which he claims to release a “statement of faith” for The Chosen. In the video, Jenkins states The Chosen is “absolutely not a replacement for Scripture.”10Dallas Jenkins, “You Have Questions About the Chosen”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiDdWe2Tb5I. This is assuredly a reassuring statement. He continues: “We have an obligation to take this seriously. We’re talking about the Son of God here. A show inspired by holy Scripture.”11Ibid. Again, this is reassuring. He likewise says, “As long as the content of the show is faithful, we are less concerned about who helps deliver it.”12Ibid. This particular quote is a response to critiques concerning non-Christian cast, crew, and distributors. Nonetheless, his concern for accuracy to Scripture is the main point. He also notes there are three “biblical consultants” who read scripts for each episode to ensure scriptural fidelity: a Roman Catholic, a Jew, and an evangelical.13Ibid. In 2019, Jenkins released a video discussion with the three consultants: David Guffey (Roman Catholic priest), Jason Sobel (Jewish rabbi), and Doug Huffman (Professor at Talbot School of … Continue reading In a closing monologue, Jenkins argues his main purpose is to please God.14Ibid. If the show is inspired by Scripture, if the creators are concerned with biblical fidelity, and if the main purpose is to please God, then all of Scripture must be followed. If only the gospels are consulted or considered, then the show is not inspired by Scripture because the full storyline of Scripture centers on Christ, from Genesis to Revelation. The same holds true for biblical fidelity and pleasing God. So, one would expect, at a minimum, for The Chosen to follow Scripture and not add or subtract words.
Season three of The Chosen was eagerly anticipated by viewers and, when the trailer released, many were excited. Yet, some were stunned by what seemed to be words from The Book of Mormon put into the mouth of the actor portraying Jesus. In one scene, a pharisee approaches the actor portraying Jesus and demands he renounce his words or the pharisees will be forced to follow the laws of Moses. The actor portraying Jesus responds, “I am the law of Moses.” This is a somewhat direct quote from The Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 15:9: “Behold, I am the law and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.” Granted 3 Nephi 15:9 does not record the exact words, “I am the law of Moses,” but it does record, “I am the law.”(Interestingly, of the 27 mentions of 3 Nephi 15 from Latter-day Saint leadership from Joseph Smith, Jr. to the present, every person referencing the verse sets it in the context of works-based righteousness, and that count excludes the surrounding context of 3 Nephi 15 itself. There is no mention whatsoever, either in The Book of Mormon or from Latter-day Saint leaders from Joseph Smith, Jr to the present, of this text being a proclamation of Jesus as the one who fulfills God’s law. )) Responding to critics in a 2022 video, Jenkins claims the other “I am” statements allow for this addition. He continues, “When he says, ‘I am the law,’ it’s kind of equivalent, in many ways it’s a figure of speech of course because Christ didn’t actually say these exact words in Scripture. We don’t know if he said something like that or not, but we think that it’s certainly possible.”15[1] Dallas Jenkins, “I quoted Book of Mormon? (How we handle criticism)”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qT8wKKpb8. Jenkins goes on and admits he has never read The Book of Mormon nor is he quoting from The Book of Mormon. He also claims the line is theologically accurate and plausible. He also states, “I thought the line just sounded like something Jesus would say.”16Ibid.
A few issues need to be addressed here. First, whether or not the line actually comes from The Book of Mormon is not the main issue. In fact, it is not the issue at all. Because the quote is not found anywhere in Scripture, the source of the quote is human creativity and not God, therefore the place in which the human creativity is found is pointless. The Book of Mormon is just as non-biblical a place to find additional “quotes from Jesus” as any other spoken words or written text that are manmade. Second, arguing the other “I am” statements from Jesus found in the New Testament warrant an additional potential “I am” statement is nonsensical. Any statement beginning with “I am” could be attributed to Jesus with this logic. According to Scripture, Jesus is indeed the author and creator of the law, but that does not make him equivalent to the law. Jesus is also the creator of elephants, but that does not make the statement, “I am the elephant,” attributable to Jesus nor does it make him equivalent to the elephant. Third, admitting a lack of knowledge of whether or not Jesus said something, but arguing it is possible he really did, is also nonsensical. John 21:25 records, “And there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” Likewise, John 20:30–31 records, “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” We know, from these passages in John’s Gospel, that Jesus did indeed do and say things not recorded in the New Testament. That does not, however, give humanity the artistic license to create the hypothetical actions or statements of Jesus and portray those human-created actions or statements as biblically faithful. As we have seen, adding to or taking away from Scripture is expressly forbidden, so in creating the “what if” actions or statements of Jesus and arguing those are faithful to the text is the opposite of biblical fidelity. It is, in fact, expressly unbiblical, blasphemous, and heretical.
As can be seen, The Chosen can be charged with breaking the Second Commandment, removing Scripture as the all-sufficient guide for Christian faith and practice, and ignoring multiple texts concerning the addition and deletion of texts of Scripture. Were the series to be charged with violating any one of these three issues, it would be damnable. However, with all three in mind, the conclusion must be drawn that Christians taking Scripture for what it says must refrain from watching “The Chosen,” or, for that matter, making use of any other “books for the laity.” Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the sufficient, authoritative, inerrant, infallible, complete Word of God. Making an image of any member of the Trinity, for any reason whatsoever, turns the created order on its head and makes God our creation rather than us being God’s creation. We become the ones who control God rather than being controlled by God’s providential care and His perfect word. May we be Christians who follow 2 Timothy 3:16–17 and worship God in ways He has laid out for us. We are His creation, not vice-versa.
[1] Postman, 3.
[2] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2010), 220.
[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 152.
[4] G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1150.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 1151.
[7] Ibid., 1152.
[8] John MacArthur, Revelation 12–22 (Chicago: Moody, 2000), 309–310.
[9] Ibid., 310.
[10] Dallas Jenkins, “You Have Questions About the Chosen”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiDdWe2Tb5I.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid. This particular quote is a response to critiques concerning non-Christian cast, crew, and distributors. Nonetheless, his concern for accuracy to Scripture is the main point.
[13] Ibid. In 2019, Jenkins released a video discussion with the three consultants: David Guffey (Roman Catholic priest), Jason Sobel (Jewish rabbi), and Doug Huffman (Professor at Talbot School of Theology). Dallas Jenkins, “The Chosen’s biblical roundtables: Full Episode one discussion”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRN3PtFebyo. Considering their theological positions and works-based soteriology, knowing a Roman Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi are involved in ensuring fidelity to Scripture is, at the least, deeply troubling.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Interestingly, of the 27 mentions of 3 Nephi 15 from Latter-day Saint leadership from Joseph Smith, Jr. to the present, every person referencing the verse sets it in the context of works-based righteousness, and that count excludes the surrounding context of 3 Nephi 15 itself. There is no mention whatsoever, either in The Book of Mormon or from Latter-day Saint leaders from Joseph Smith, Jr to the present, of this text being a proclamation of Jesus as the one who fulfills God’s law.
[16] Dallas Jenkins, “I quoted Book of Mormon? (How we handle criticism)”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qT8wKKpb8.
[17] Ibid.
References
| 1 | Postman, 3. |
|---|---|
| 2 | John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2010), 220 |
| 3 | Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 152. |
| 4 | G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1150. |
| 5, 11, 14, 16 | Ibid. |
| 6 | Ibid., 1151. |
| 7 | Ibid., 1152. |
| 8 | John MacArthur, Revelation 12–22 (Chicago: Moody, 2000), 309–310. |
| 9 | Ibid., 310. |
| 10 | Dallas Jenkins, “You Have Questions About the Chosen”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiDdWe2Tb5I. |
| 12 | Ibid. This particular quote is a response to critiques concerning non-Christian cast, crew, and distributors. Nonetheless, his concern for accuracy to Scripture is the main point. |
| 13 | Ibid. In 2019, Jenkins released a video discussion with the three consultants: David Guffey (Roman Catholic priest), Jason Sobel (Jewish rabbi), and Doug Huffman (Professor at Talbot School of Theology). Dallas Jenkins, “The Chosen’s biblical roundtables: Full Episode one discussion”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRN3PtFebyo. Considering their theological positions and works-based soteriology, knowing a Roman Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi are involved in ensuring fidelity to Scripture is, at the least, deeply troubling. |
| 15 | [1] Dallas Jenkins, “I quoted Book of Mormon? (How we handle criticism)”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qT8wKKpb8. |
